Priming the comment pump: Hydrogen advocate calls out pro-plug-in ABG readers [w/POLL]
by Sebastian Blanco on Jun 24th 2009 at 8:10PM 
Toyota FCHV - Click above for high-res image gallery
Regular AutoblogGreen readers will probably be familiar with the name Greg Blencoe. He's known around here as a big proponent of hydrogen vehicles, and apparently believes that everyone else should love the H2, too. Blencoe has just written a post that describes why (again) and is challenging AutoblogGreen readers to think about whether mainstream drivers will be drawn to hydrogen or pure electric vehicles.
Basically, Blencoe says that if you put a Mitsubishi iMiEV, a plug-in Toyota Prius and a hydrogen-powered Toyota FCHV in front of Joe V6-pack, he'll choose the FCHV. Why? Because the iMiEV has limited range and the PHEV Prius is too expensive and doesn't deliver 100 mpg. The FCHV, on the other hand, can go 400 miles and has a bunch of trunk space. That's a bit of comment fodder if there ever was one. At least he calls AutoblogGreen "very popular" (flattery will get you everything). We've set up a poll to answer this question, but we're also ready for the comment explosion. Now, whaddya think?
Gallery: Mitsubishi iMiEV production model
[Source: Hydrogen Car Revolution]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 10)
theviledrh 8:34PM (6/24/2009)
pfffft!
Reply
Lad 10:11PM (6/24/2009)
Exactly!
bob 3:42PM (6/25/2009)
"Electric Cars Will Not Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Says Federal Study
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50070
nixon 11:49AM (6/26/2009)
bob -- here is the counter argument to this study. Basically that we use so much electricity and natural gas to extract and refine oil, that if we were to just directly power our cars and power plants with that electricity and natural gas, we could just leave the oil in the ground.
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1715
Taking this a step further, and applying it to the study you quoted, you would have to add all of the GHG impact of producing the electricity to refine the oil onto the ICE vehicle side of the equation.
Since it will take approximately the same amount of coal-powered electricity to refine the oil as it takes to run electric cars for roughly the same distance, the GHG emissions from generating electricity roughly cancels out on both sides. All that is left is the GHG emissions from burning the oil.
bob 6:47PM (6/26/2009)
Nixon,
That's a great article. Too bad it also doesn't mention the vast amounts of hydrogen also used to refine oil, particularly in the tar sands and shale oil. It would literally be enough hydrogen to power millions of hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Nixon 12:25PM (6/27/2009)
Bob -- That's a great point. Even the hydrogen used to extract oil could be used for a better purpose than than getting the oil out of the ground. You've got the right idea, you just need to take it further. Because the hydrogen used by the oil industry isn't a resource, it's a refined product.
If you take the inputs used to create the hydrogen (electricity and natural gas) and use it to power electric cars, it would power even more cars than refining it into hydrogen. For every million cars powered by that refined hydrogen product, you could power 2-3 million battery powered cars.
bob 9:25PM (7/01/2009)
Nixon, here's some great news for you to read!
"Obama Administration’s action paves the way for Hydrogen Energy’s low-carbon power plant in California with $308 million of funding."
http://www.hydrogenenergy.com/News.aspx?id=259
Chris M 12:03AM (7/02/2009)
Bob, did you read the entire article? What is planned is to use coal and petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining), reacted with steam to produce H2 and CO2. They plan to inject the CO2 into old oil wells, which is at best only a temporary storage measure, and at worst could have disasterous leaks.
The H2 will be used with fuel cells to generate electricity for the grid, at a higher efficiency than standard coal fired powerplants. It is an open question whether the much higher cost is worth the modest gain in efficiency, this project should help answer that question.
Ironically, they could used molten carbonate fuel cells that run directly on carbon instead, bypassing the efficiency robbing steam reforming step thus achieving higher efficiency, possibly at a lower cost. But "Hydrogen" is such a wonderful buzzword...
James 8:35PM (6/24/2009)
"and the PHEV Prius is too expensive "
And how expensive is the hydrogen-powered Toyota FCHV?
About $500,000 per car?
Reply
Snoopy 2:08AM (6/25/2009)
Well hey now!
You mean to tell me you're not saving up for your $2 million Honda FCX Clarity?
(Side note: I don't have anything against Honda, I have a Honda. I just don't have $2 million to spend on a car, or anything else for that matter.)
Michael 8:48PM (6/24/2009)
I love having to stop every < 400 miles to fill up on *insert fuel of choice*. It's awesome. Especially when there's an entire 1 filling station in your state, is it 400 miles away from where you live? Those lame EVs rely on you having power points installed in your own house (!) to recharge their batteries.
Seriously though, I wonder if the poll results would be different if, say, a Chevy Volt replaced the iMiEV.
Reply
Zel 12:31AM (6/25/2009)
Volt should have been on the list. EREV tech IS the one to match/beat in the near future.
Critter 10:53AM (6/25/2009)
I would have voted for the volt or at least its technology. Not using any gas on a regular basis, for my commute atleast, would be great. Having the option to use gas and go on a road trip is even better!
Although a diesel engine would be a much better choice for a generator. . .
BlackbirdHighway 8:55PM (6/24/2009)
I like to look at cars before I choose one. I'm not a big fan of the Prius styling. I think the iMiEV is kinda cool, in a geeky sort of way. Got any pictures of the Toyota FCHV? And why are there two Toyota's in the lineup, and no American cars? That's not gonna fly for patriotic consumers!
I doubt that anything from Toyota can match the styling excellence of the Model S, and Tesla is an American car company, so I choose that one.
BTW, Joe 6-Pack is a biased, condescending term. Why don't you just say rednecks, if that's what you really mean?
Reply
xyz 9:22PM (6/24/2009)
That's exactly what I thought. And a redneck is definitely gonna choose a different car anyway. Mainstream folks will likely choose BEVs or PHEV. Time will tell. Until then Greggy, stop you propaganda!
Larzen 9:08PM (6/24/2009)
I voted for the iMiev. I would have voted for either the 2010 Ford Fusion or
the Chevy Volt, but those choices were not given. If there are some breakthroughs
in FCHV tech, or a solution to the infrastructure problem, I might change my
mind. Actually, I think a Methane FCV is smarter than H2. NG is piped all over
the U.S. You can tank up in the garage. Why doesn't Mr. Blencoe forget about
H2 and push for a Methane Economy instead? Soon, Methane Hydrates will
be mined and we will have an abundance. Methane can even power cellphones
and PCs. If you want to use Hydrogen, why not put it to use generating
electricity so that we can plug in our Prii, our iMievs and our Chevy Volts?
Reply
jake 9:09PM (6/24/2009)
The problem with the choices is "Joe V6-pack" probably can't afford any of them (except maybe the iMIEV if it really is cut to $21k by 2010), so I chose "other".
It really depends on what you assume. Do you assume there are fueling stations for the FCHV (it's useless right now without fueling stations). If so, do you assume there are rapid charge stations for the iMIEV? Do you assume cost is no object? The answers will vary depending on what you assume.
If it was my choice, I'd probably chose a Model S or maybe a Volt (both of which is curiously missing from the poll). I think a sedan would be the most popular in the US.
Reply
Innovator 9:10PM (6/24/2009)
It will NEVER be as efficient to create hydrogen, ship it, convert to electricity via fuel cell, as it is to just create electricity ship via transmission line, and store in battery. Arguments about longer range and quick re-fills may have merit, but are based on future predictions. There are an amazing number of battery "break-troughs" being announced that promise up to 10 times range, lower cost and fast re-charge capability. If 9 concepts fail and 1 succeeds it will be enough.
Reply
John 10:06PM (6/24/2009)
I would say 95 percent of mainstream drivers would choose the vehicle they can afford to drive regardless of the configuration. As far as cost goes that dependent economy of scale. Any of the configuration product in sufficient quantity will be affordable. The configuration I would choose was not an option. It an extended range electric vehicle like the Chevy volt with a Fuel cell instead of an ICE for power generation.
Reply
fnc 9:25PM (6/24/2009)
It's not really fair to say that since some supposed future hydrogen car is superior to electric cars today, then hydrogen is the better choice today. Who knows what the state of electrical storage technology will be in five or ten years.
It's always odd to me to see the H boosters railing against battery cars. Since a FCV will be, at its heart, an electrical automobile anyway and ultimately agnostic about where the juice flowing into the motor comes from, they should be calling for the widespread adoption of EV's powered by -whatever- means are available and feasible today. As more people own and use EV's, research into electricity generation and storage will accelerate, and that will mean faster advancement of fuel cell technology. Or maybe some currently unknown technology will emerge for pumping electrons to that motor.
Reply